commune omnibus subiectis imperio nostro hoc praestavit beneficium et constitutionem tam aequissimam quam nobilem scripsit, cuius tenorem si observaverint homines, licet eis adire hereditatem et in tantum teneri, in quantum valere bona hereditatis contingit: ut ex hac causa neque deliberationis auxilium eis fiat necessarium, nisi omissa observatione nostrae constitutionis et deliberandum existimaverint et sese veteri gravamini aditionis supponere maluerint.

Item extraneus 7

etsi propter simplicitatem praesentis legis subtilitatem non observaverint, in tantum tamen teneantur, quantum in hereditate invenerint.'

By the important change to which he here alludes Justinian effected a complete reformation in the Roman law of inheritance, so far as relates to the character and liabilities of the heres. As Mr. Hunter says (Roman Law p. 574), 'it was a bold and successful stroke to convert the heir into a mere official, designated by the deceased for the purpose of winding up his affairs and distributing his property. The heir was now a mere executor, with the privilege of being residuary legatee, and if the testator did not forbid it, of retaining the Falcidian fourth.'

By this enactment (Cod. 6. 30. 22) Justinian gave the person to whom the hereditas was delata, whether ab intestato or under a will, the option between applying for a spatium deliberandi, and making a complete inventory of the property of the deceased. If he chose the latter, he must, with the assistance of a notary and a prescribed number of witnesses representing the creditors and legatees, begin the inventory within one month of his becoming aware of his right, and finish it within two months more: if, however, he was at a distance, he was allowed a year. During this interval neither creditors nor legatees might molest him in any way, though at its termination they could require him to swear to the accuracy of the inventory, which he also had to sign. By selecting this procedure, the heir was exempted from all liability beyond the assets of the deceased, Cod. loc. cit. 4, and also from the obligation of ascertaining rights of priority, etc. among creditors; these and legatees were to be paid in the order in which they applied to him, and if the assets were exhausted unpaid creditors might resort to paid legatees, Cod. ib. 4-8. The universitas iuris in fact no longer passed to the heir: there was no confusio between his proprietary relations and those of the deceased, so that iura in re aliena and debts were no longer affected in the way described, p. 275 supr., Cod. ib. 9.

If the institutus or person entitled preferred to apply for a spatium deliberandi, his old liabilities remained, ib. 14: even in this case he must make an inventory; if he did not, and accepted the inheritance, he lost his right to the Falcidian fourth, and must pay legacies and fideicommissa in full. The practical result, as Mr. Hunter remarks, was that if there was any doubt as to the solvency of the hereditas, the heir was compelled to make an inventory.

§ 7. No form was at any time prescribed by law for acceptance of an

heres testamento institutus aut ab intestato ad legitimam hereditatem vocatus potest aut pro herede gerendo vel etiam nuda voluntate suscipiendae hereditatis heres fieri. pro herede autem gerere quis videtur, si rebus hereditariis tamquam heres utatur vel vendendo res hereditarias aut praedia colendo locandove et quoquo modo si voluntatem suam declaret vel re vel verbis de adeunda hereditate, dummodo sciat eum, in cuius bonis pro herede gerit, testato intestatove obiisse et se ei heredem esse. pro herede enim gerere est pro domino gerere: veteres enim heredes pro dominis appellabant. sicut autem nuda voluntate extraneus heres fit, ita et contraria destinatione statim ab hereditate repellitur. eum, qui mutus vel surdus natus est vel postea factus, nihil prohibet pro herede gerere et adquirere sibi hereditatem, si tamen intellegit quod agitur.

XX.

DE LEGATIS.

Post haec videamus de legatis. quae pars iuris extra propositam quidem materiam videtur: nam loquimur de his iuris figuris, quibus per universitatem res nobis adquiruntur. sed cum omnino de testamentis deque heredibus qui testamento instituuntur locuti sumus, non sine causa sequenti loco potest haec iuris materia tractari.

inheritance, though before the abolition of cretiones (note on § 5 supr.) a formal acceptance might have been required by the testator. The mere intention to accept, provided it was evidenced by words or acts (pro herede gestio), was sufficient. It might not, however, be partial ('sed et si quis ex pluribus partibus in eiusdem hereditate institutus sit, non potest quasdam partes repudiare, quasdam agnoscere' Dig. 29. 2. 2), or conditional, for hereditatis aditio was an actus legitimus: 'sed et si quis ita dixerit, si solvendo hereditas est, adeo hereditatem, nulla aditio est' Dig. ib. 51. 2. Nor could aditio itself be made on behalf of the institutus by an agent: 'respondit, per procuratorem hereditatem adquiri non posse' Dig. ib. 90, though this rule admitted of exceptions in favour of juristic persons, Dig. 36. 1. 6. 4, infants, Cod. 6. 30. 18. pr., and those of weak intellect, Cod. 5. 7. 70. pr., and the declaration of acceptance might be made by an agent always, Dig. 36. 1. 65. 3. Before delatio a person could not bind himself by either acceptance or repudiation, Dig. 29. 2. 17. 1, but after delatio either determination, when once manifested, was irrevocable, Cod. 6. 31.

Legatum itaque est donatio quaedam a defuncto relicta. 1 Sed olim quidem erant legatorum genera quattuor: per vindi- 2 cationem, per damnationem, sinendi modo, per praeceptionem: et certa quaedam verba cuique generi legatorum adsignata erant, per quae singula genera legatorum significabantur. sed ex constitutionibus divorum principum sollemnitas huiusmodi verborum penitus sublata est. nostra autem constitutio, quam cum magna fecimus lucubratione, defunctorum voluntates validiores esse cupientes et non verbis, sed voluntatibus eorum faventes, disposuit, ut omnibus legatis una sit natura et, quibuscumque verbis aliquid derelictum sit, liceat legatariis id persequi non solum per actiones personales, sed etiam per in rem et per hypothecariam: cuius constitutionis perpensum modum ex ipsius tenore perfectissime accipere possibile est.

For the mode in which bonorum possessio was obtained see Bk. iii. 9. 10 inf.

Tit. XX. 1. Hereditas is universal succession, sometimes under a will, sometimes ab intestato : legatum is singular succession, under a will only, to a part, directly or indirectly, of the testator's property: 'legatum est delibatio hereditatis, qua testator ex eo, quod universum heredis foret, alicui quid collatum velit' Dig. 30. 116. pr. Historically, the idea of legacy is inseparable from that of testamentum; a legacy can be charged only on a testamentary heir, and only through the will itself, Tit. 23. 10 inf.: no legatee is entitled unless some one accepts under the testamentum: no one can be a legatee who has not testamenti factio passiva (note on Tit. 14. pr. supr.); the words in which a legacy is given must be formal, imperative, and in the Latin tongue (civilia verba); 'legatum est, quod legis modo, id est imperative, testamento relinquitur: nam ea, quae precativo modo relinquuntur, fideicommissa vocantur' Ulpian, reg. 24. I.

§ 2. The four formulae, alluded to here, in which legacies could be given under the older law, are described at length in Gaius ii. 192-223, and Ulpian, reg. 24. 2-13. They differed from one another, inter alia, (1) in respect of the property which could be given by them respectively. Nothing could be given per vindicationem, with small exceptions, which did not belong to the testator ex iure Quiritium at the time both of the execution of the will and of his decease; a legacy sinendi modo might comprise property of the heir as well as of the testator: per damnationem could be given property belonging to any one, the heir being bound, if possible, to procure and convey it to the legatee; see § 4 inf. (2) In respect of the remedy available to the legatee: if the disposition were made per vindicationem or praeceptionem, he could recover by real action if sinendi modo, it was doubted whether the heir was under

3 Sed non usque ad eam constitutionem standum esse existimavimus. cum enim antiquitatem invenimus legata quidem stricte concludentem, fideicommissis autem, quae ex voluntate magis descendebant defunctorum, pinguiorem naturam indulgentem necessarium esse duximus omnia legata fideicommissis exaequare, ut nulla sit inter ea differentia, sed quod deest legatis, hoc repleatur ex natura fideicommissorum et, si quid amplius est in legatis, per hoc crescat fideicommissi natura. sed ne in primis legum cunabulis permixte de his exponendo studiosis adulescentibus quandam introducamus difficultatem, operae pretium esse duximus interim separatim prius de legatis et postea de fideicommissis tractare, ut natura

any active obligation at all, Gaius ii. 213-14: if per damnationem, the remedy was in personam only. (3) In respect of the effect of a gift of the same thing to two or more persons disiunctim, Gaius ii. 205. The importance of these distinctions of form was much reduced by the SC. Neronianum, A.D. 64, which apparently enacted that whichever of the four formulae was actually employed, it should be construed as though it were that most favourable to the legatee, i. e. per damnationem: 'SCO. Neroniano cautum est, ut quod minus aptis (or ratis) verbis legatum est, perinde sit ac si optimo iure legatum esset: optimum autem ius legati per damnationem est' Ulpian, reg. 24. 11: though it is possible that this enactment, while requiring still the use of Latin, dispensed with the necessity of any set form whatever. Some hundreds of years later testators were enabled by enactments of Constantius, A.D. 339, and Theodosius II, A.D. 439, to give legacies in any words they chose, whether Greek or Latin, Cod. 6. 37. 21; 6. 23. 21. 6. Justinian's own regulations, mentioned in this and the following sections, assimilated the civil law bequest (legatum) so far as was possible to fideicommissa, the nature of which will appear from Tits. 23 and 24 inf. Any legal superiority which either had possessed over the other was in future to be common to both, and the object of a bequest, whether technically a legatum or a fideicommissum, was to be recoverable by the beneficiary by the most appropriate remedy, real or personal. The legatee acquired a real right to the res legata in every case where it belonged to the testator, and in no other, unless indeed the testator himself expressed a contrary intention, Cod. 6. 43. 1; he acquired a personal right against the heir in every case, and this was secured by a statutory hypotheca, first given by Justinian himself, over everything which the person on whom the legacy or fideicommissum was charged had himself received from the inheritance, Cod. 6. 43. 2.

§ 3. For the principal original differences between legacies and fideicommissa see on Tit. 23. I inf.

utriusque iuris cognita facile possint permixtionem eorum eruditi suptilioribus auribus accipere.

Non solum autem testatoris vel heredis res, sed et aliena 4 legari potest: ita ut heres cogatur redimere eam et praestare vel, si non potest redimere, aestimationem eius dare. sed si talis res sit, cuius non est commercium, nec aestimatio eius debetur, sicuti si campum Martium vel basilicas vel templa vel quae publico usui destinata sunt legaverit: nam nullius momenti legatum est. quod autem diximus alienam rem posse legari, ita intellegendum est, si defunctus sciebat alienam rem esse, non et si ignorabat: forsitan enim, si scisset alienam, non legasset. et ita divus Pius rescripsit. et verius est ipsum qui agit, id est legatarium, probare oportere scisse alienam rem legare defunctum, non heredem probare oportere ignorasse alienam, quia semper necessitas probandi incumbit illi qui agit. Sed et si rem obligatam creditori aliquis legaverit, necesse 5 habet heres luere. et hoc quoque casu idem placet, quod in re aliena, ut ita demum luere necesse habeat heres, si sciebat defunctus rem obligatam esse: et ita divi Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt. si tamen defunctus voluit legatarium luere et hoc expressit, non debet heres eam luere. Si res aliena 6 legata fuerit et eius vivo testatore legatarius dominus factus fuerit, si quidem ex causa emptionis, ex testamento actione pretium consequi potest: si vero ex causa lucrativa, veluti ex donatione vel ex alia simili causa, agere non potest. nam traditum est duas lucrativas causas in eundem hominem et in eandem rem concurrere non posse. hac ratione si ex duobus testamentis eadem res eidem debeatur, interest, utrum rem an aestimationem ex testamento consecutus est: nam si rem, agere non potest, quia habet eam ex causa lucrativa, si aesti

§ 4. The true rule, of which only an illustration is afforded by the legacy of a res extra commercium, is that the act which the heres has to perform in favour of the legatee must be both physically possible and legally permitted: as he cannot convey to the latter a res extra commercium, so he ought not to be compelled to pay him its value.

§ 6. The maxim duas lucrativas causas in eundem hominem et in eandem rem concurrere non posse' may be otherwise stated thus: if the res legata already belongs to the legatee when the dies legati cedit (Dig. 30. 82. pr.), the latter can claim its value from the heir only if and